1976 (1) TMI 25 - HC - Income Tax

Court rules partnership not extension of family business. Tribunal error in evidence and findings. Assessments upheld.

Satinder Kumar (H. UF.) Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Patiala

The court held that Satinder Kumar's partnership in M/s. Vijay Traders was not an extension of the Hindu undivided family business. The Tribunal erred in ... A Firm, HUF Partner, Income Of HUF, Income Returned, Same Business, Share Income Issues Involved:1. Whether Satinder Kumar's joining the partnership, M/s. Vijay Traders, was an extension of the Hindu undivided family business.2. Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the Additional Commissioner's order u/s 263, Income-tax Act, on the ground that Satinder Kumar's joining the partnership was an extension of the Hindu undivided family's earlier business.3. Whether the Tribunal's finding that the 11% share income from M/s. Vijay Traders belonged to the Hindu undivided family was based on no evidence.4. Whether the Additional Commissioner's order setting aside the assessments for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1970-71 was sustainable.Summary:Issue 1: Extension of Hindu Undivided Family BusinessThe Tribunal erred in law in holding that Satinder Kumar's partnership in M/s. Vijay Traders was an extension of the Hindu undivided family business. The court emphasized that there is no presumption that a business standing in the name of a karta is the business of the Hindu undivided family. Positive material is required to show that the karta was a partner on behalf of the family. The Tribunal's reliance on the similarity of business types and locations was insufficient to conclude that the business was an extension of the family business.Issue 2: Tribunal's Upholding of Additional Commissioner's Order u/s 263In view of the answer to Issue 1, no answer is necessary to this question.Issue 3: Tribunal's Finding Based on No EvidenceThe fact that Satinder Kumar's share income from M/s. Vijay Traders was shown in the assessee-Hindu undivided family's return for the assessment year 1967-68 and in its original return for the assessment year 1968-69 does not constitute material for the Tribunal's finding that the 11% income from M/s. Vijay Traders belonged to the Hindu undivided family. The Tribunal failed to consider the assessee's explanation that the income was mistakenly included in the returns.Issue 4: Sustainability of Additional Commissioner's OrderIn view of the answers to Issues 1 and 3, it is not necessary to reply to this question.Costs and FeesThe assessee is entitled to its costs, assessed at Rs. 200. Counsel's fee is assessed at the same figure.ConcurrenceC. R. Thakur J. concurred with the judgment.